Do Most Americans Now Favor Marriage Equality?

Pollmaven Nate Silver “charts the trend from all available public polls on same-sex marriage going back to 1988.” The results don’t look good for opponents of same-sex marriage.

Silver writes:

There is a margin of error associated with the calculation of the trendline, so it is too soon to say with confidence that support for gay marriage has become the plurality position (let alone the majority one). Other polls — like a Pew survey released in March — continue to show opinion split about evenly.

However, opponents of gay marriage almost certainly no longer constitute a majority; just one of the last nine polls has shown opposition to gay marriage above 50 percent. […]

At the same time, the people who turn out to vote are considerably older than the population as a whole, so gay marriage will not perform quite as well at the ballot booth as in surveys of the general population. In addition, whenever a position is gaining ground, its newly won support is often tentative and can be peeled away by an effective counter-campaign.

But Republican candidates, who have placed less emphasis on gay marriage in recent years, probably cannot expect their opposition to it to be a net electoral positive for them except in select circumstances.

The same-sex marriage fight isn’t over, but I’m very confident in the eventual outcome. In the long run, victories at the ballot box are driven by victories in public opinion; if the trendline doesn’t change in the next ten years, I don’t see how the anti-SSM position will remain viable policy except in the most conservative states.

This entry posted in crossposted on TADA, Same-Sex Marriage. Bookmark the permalink. 

64 Responses to Do Most Americans Now Favor Marriage Equality?

  1. 1
    Jake Squid says:

    I really like the fact that it’s such a foregone conclusion that this is the first comment.

  2. 2
    Robert says:

    I had meant to comment but it slipped my mind.

    Five years ago I would have considered myself opposed to SSM, reluctantly in some cases.

    Today I consider myself a supporter of SSM – though I still do prefer to see it done via legislation and initiative rather than court action. That seems to be the trend anyway, which I think is fortunate.

    I largely credit the arguments I have heard from Amp and others here for that. I’ve been persuaded; I was wrong, Amp was right.

    So if you’re wondering ‘damn it, is it even worth making this blog post/engaging this argument yet again’, here is one data point that says yes, it is.

  3. 3
    ballgame says:

    My inner 11-year-old is greatly amused by the shape of the graph.

  4. 4
    nobody.really says:

    Good ol’ Barry shares these thoughts not only with us, but with the fine folk at Family Scholars.

    For what it’s worth, I posted a variety of thoughts there on the question, What harm would result from state recognition of same-sex marriage? I compiled the best arguments I could find. And they weren’t all mindless.

  5. 5
    mythago says:

    Robert @2: darn it, you had me all cheering for you and then you dropped in the ‘court action’ thing.

    The way to prevent court action is for states not to have unconstitutional laws.

  6. 6
    Robert says:

    Maybe so.

    But it’s my view that the way to make major social changes and have them stick is for them to come from organic democratic preferences, not legal theories only tangentially accessible to the ordinary joe and jane on the street.

    Nationalized abortion rights came from judicial action of a very narrow segment of society. The result has been 40 years of explosive and destructive political conflict – and has led to the widespread deterioration of actual access to those rights. The two things are not unconnected.

    It steamboats when comes steamboatin’ time. Judges deciding the whistle should blow now, in the absence of a social consensus that yes indeed it should, mostly not helpful.

  7. 7
    Ampersand says:

    First of all, Robert, I’m greatly, greatly pleased that reading “Alas” changed your mind on SSM.

    As a matter of abstract theory, I agree with you that change from the the voting booth is to be preferred to change through judicial ruling, because the voting booth comes closer to being grassroots.

    But that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with using the courts. The third branch of government exists for a reason.

    It appears that the court decision in Massachusetts, and then in other states, accelerated the progress of SSM in the US. (You can see it in the graph that opens this post; the Massachusetts Supremes ruled in November 2003, and the slope towards acceptance increased noticeably right afterward). Without the court rulings, this issue might have waited an additional decade, perhaps two decades, before it became thinkable enough in the mainstream for legislatures to even begin to do the right thing.

    Real change is messy; real change comes from a lot of different places, not all neatly from one place. I don’t see anything wrong with social change being jump-started by a court ruling or two.

    You claim that court rulings extend divisions. I’m not convinced. It’s hardly as if abortion wouldn’t have been controversial, if only Roe v Wade hadn’t come along. It’s easy to think of things decided legislatively that have remained controversial for decades (affirmative action), and also easy to think of court decisions that have been widely accepted in the US (Loving vs Virginia).

  8. 8
    chingona says:

    Judges deciding the whistle should blow now, in the absence of a social consensus that yes indeed it should, mostly not helpful.

    I know you qualified this with a “mostly,” but I’m not sure history justifies even a “mostly.” Just to use the most obvious example at hand here, Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriage at a time when it never could have passed in most of the legislatures in the country. Interracial relationships and families then gradually became more acceptable as people saw them happening and realized the world wouldn’t end.

    The only other issue that I can think of that’s been like abortion is school busing. I think both of those are different than gay marriage, but it’s too late right now for me to suss out the why and how.

  9. 9
    Robert says:

    You claim that court rulings extend divisions. I’m not convinced. It’s hardly as if abortion wouldn’t have been controversial, if only Roe v Wade hadn’t come along. It’s easy to think of things decided legislatively that have remained controversial for decades (affirmative action), and also easy to think of court decisions that have been widely accepted in the US (Loving vs Virginia).

    Abortion would not have been nearly as controversial without Roe v. Wade, because it would have been addressable by the democratic institutions of the various localities and states. That doesn’t mean there wouldn’t have been contention, but it would mean that the stakes of the contention would have been much, much lower because they were distributed across the entire political system, instead of being focused in one highly changeable group of nine people. I’ve seen women grow almost physically ill at the thought that there would be a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that would take away the abortion right by overturning Roe.

    Perhaps a less charged issue would be a useful comparison. Consider right-to-work laws. Right now, right to work is a state-by-state phenomenon and in places with stronger union traditions those laws don’t get passed, while in other places they do. Unions work against ’em, economic libertarians work for ’em, and by and large the laws are passed in accordance with the varying mood and preferences of the state communities. But how would unions feel if thirty years ago the Supreme Court had upheld a fundamental right to work that basically forbade most of the legal structures that support unions today? You saw the level of energy and controversy generated by one, relatively mild, union rollback in one state. How much more upset would the left-wing labor community have been by a nationwide, unchangeable-except-by-massive-shift, judicial shutdown of labor rights?

    Recall that the Christian Right did not even exist as a political force before Roe v. Wade. It was the stakes-raising of a winner-takes-all resolution that energized that movement and brought it into real being on the national level. Before, right-wing Christians were largely content to try to run things in their own little bailiwicks, and you hellbound atheist degenerates were left in peace in your enclaves.

    The point is that networks of enclaves are able to sort out social questions much more softly and with less friction than unified national bodies. When the enclaves – whether union-loving Seattle or abortion-hating Salt Lake City – lose their ability to have influence on an issue, people who care deeply about the issue can’t just go to the city council meeting or vote for a senator, they have to wage political war to try to get their preferences met. Conciliating middles step out of the picture because there’s no national fora for conciliating middlers, and no burning energy to create one. You get NARAL and CWA and a wasteland in between.

    Just to use the most obvious example at hand here, Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriage at a time when it never could have passed in most of the legislatures in the country. Interracial relationships and families then gradually became more acceptable as people saw them happening and realized the world wouldn’t end.

    I doubt it. Places that were opposed to such marriages continued opposed to them, with an added layer of “g-d fedrul gummin telling us how to live our lives”. To accept your contention, I’d have to see evidence of a change in the inflection of the curve of interracial unions following the ruling. Dollars to donuts, the curve was already up before Loving and continued going up afterward. The ruling undoubtedly was of benefit to the relatively small number of interracial couples who wanted legal recognition of their marriages in the more-racist states, but I’d be shocked to see evidence that it made a real impact on the number of such couples, either nationwide or in the communities that had previously placed legal bars. I’d bet mixed-race couples continued living, or moving to, states with social acceptance of their marriages.

    In addition, you’re incorrect about the status of interracial marriage law in the US before Loving. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#Americas and check out the map. Immediately prior to the 1967 ruling, only 17 states had such laws on the books – the states you’d expect, the Deep South primarily. About 10 states had never had such laws. In the other 23 states, the laws had indeed been overturned, through democratic repeal processes, between 1776 and 1967 – and mostly between 1948 and 1967, so just two decades before Loving. (Numbers are based on a count from the map so I might be off by one or two.) So while democratic repeal might have been an uphill battle in the remaining southern states, it’s not even slightly accurate to say that the court ruling created an impetus for repeal in a country where it would be otherwise unthinkable; repeal through democratic processes was an ongoing trend, with a major surge in activity in the generation before the Supremes ever took up the case.

    It was already steamboatin’ time.

  10. 10
    Stefan says:

    Robert, congratulations, it’s very rare that I see someone online admiting to having changed his mind due to a blog.

  11. 11
    Stefan says:

    I was once opposed to the adoption of children by gay couplse.I don’t remember what made me changed my mind, but it was most probably a feminist forum.

  12. 12
    chingona says:

    Robert,

    My point isn’t that the political landscape of the abortion debate would look exactly the same if the issue had been left to the legislature, but rather that just because something is decided through the courts doesn’t necessarily mean it is destined to become a political hot spot for generations to come. You’ve thrown out abortion because you think it’s the way to our lefty hearts (oh no! we don’t want gay marriage to be like abortion!), but not all issues resonate in the same way.

    It’s certainly true that the Supreme Court is usually behind, not ahead, of the times. I’m well aware that interracial marriage was already legal in much of the country at the time of Loving. Indeed, some have argued that abortion was on its way to being legal in much of the country at the time of Roe. That doesn’t mean there is no value in a court ruling establishing a right. After all, the Lovings were subject to a middle-of-the-night raid of their home. Or take Lawrence v. Texas. Most people don’t think that anal and oral sex between consenting adults should be illegal, but for some reason, it was very hard to get these laws off the books, and occasionally, some prosecutor would dust them off and go after someone. And while there hasn’t been no grousing from conservatives about that ruling, I don’t see some huge social movement forming around recriminalizing consensual sodomy. My point is – not all issues are abortion.

    I’m having a hard time articulating why, but I just don’t see legalizing gay marriage as being an abortion kind of thing. I’m sure it won’t surprise you to hear that I don’t think dead babies are the primary driver of the anti-abortion movement, but people’s discomfort around the whole dead babies thing means there a lot of people who, when push comes to shove, don’t want abortion to be illegal, but who also aren’t interested in defending that right and don’t want to identify as pro-choice. It’s a very particular kind of thing, and gay marriage just doesn’t have that.

  13. 13
    chingona says:

    Though, I’m actually more interested in why you changed your mind about SSM than I am in having an argument about courts vs. legislatures in which, most likely, neither one of us will convince the other.

  14. 14
    mythago says:

    Immediately prior to the 1967 ruling, only 17 states had such laws on the books

    This is in part because of state-court decisions like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp in 1948, finding such laws unconstitutional. (Maryland, apparently, didn’t repeal its laws until Loving actually got started.) So it’s pretty similar to what we have now, where a couple of states have found the marriage laws unconstitutional, and then many state legislatures take it up.

    If you genuinely believe that courts should STFU and leave controversial issues to the legislatures, I recommend you read the dissent in Perez.

  15. 15
    nobody.really says:

    Whether or not a court should intervene on “social issues,” Robert emphasizes that a court declaration does not, by itself, conform the world to the ruling. People use the distinguishing terms de jure and de facto for a reason.

    The most obvious example is the struggle for blacks to achieve equality. For Black History Month my daughter learns that Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation – but I know that relatively few slaves were actually freed as a result. For Black History Month my daughter learns that that the evils of slavery ended in the 1860s – but I know that many of those evils were perpetuated by Jim Crow, the KKK, and simple social convention. My daughter learns that segregation in education ended with Brown v. Bd of Education — but I know that as a factual matter schools remain rather segregated to this day. My daughter learns that people are equal before the law regardless of race – but I know differently.

    In brief, my daughter is getting a fair grounding in legal history. Basically, it’s a kind of indoctrination. I don’t object too strenuously, because I like much of it. And because I know that she will receive further schooling to give her a better grounding in facts. But I don’t confuse the legal theory with the fact.

    Marriage alters a person’s status, both in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of others. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts may be able to alter the former; whether it can alter the latter remains to be seen.

  16. 16
    chingona says:

    Robert emphasizes that a court declaration does not, by itself, conform the world to the ruling. People use the distinguishing terms de jure and de facto for a reason.

    Robert said using the courts to advance a cause increases the likelihood that the issue will continue to be hotly debated and unsettled for a long time to come. He seems to also feel that it’s anti-democratic to use the courts. That’s a different argument than saying the court ruling by itself doesn’t instantaneously change everything.

    Marriage alters a person’s status, both in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of others. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts may be able to alter the former; whether it can alter the latter remains to be seen.

    Of course. But that reality doesn’t somehow render legal rights meaningless.

    I might prefer to live in a community where we’re not the only Jewish family in town, but that doesn’t mean there’s no reason to get rid of the covenants forbidding people from selling their homes to members of the Hebrew race.

  17. 17
    nobody.really says:

    Robert emphasizes that a court declaration does not, by itself, conform the world to the ruling. People use the distinguishing terms de jure and de facto for a reason.

    Robert said using the courts to advance a cause increases the likelihood that the issue will continue to be hotly debated and unsettled for a long time to come. He seems to also feel that it’s anti-democratic to use the courts. That’s a different argument than saying the court ruling by itself doesn’t instantaneously change everything.

    Fair enough; I did not describe Robert’s position fully. Similarly, I omitted reference to his curious odor.

    That said, I suspect we’d all agree that appeal to the courts is “undemocratic” in the sense that it may produce results that are contrary to the views of the majority. That’s part of the appeal of courts.

    But I would go further. I acknowledge that court rulings often do more than clarify legal rights; they also may establish a kind of legitimacy on the prevailing side. Some people celebrate this dynamic; I don’t.

    I believe in the separation of church and state – that is, I want to keep government out of the values business to the greatest extent practicable. It’s the courts role to say that we need to accord equal treatment before the law. It’s not the court’s role to say the racism is bad. We have religions and families and editorial pages and political parties and social clubs and blog sites to do that.

    I want courts to recognize same-sex marriage because I think people should have equal treatment before the law. I don’t want courts to recognize same-sex marriage because homosexuals are nice people and deserve vindication. First, I think SOB homosexuals should be entitled to marriage, too. Second, it ain’t the courts job to “vindicate” people — only to enforce law.

  18. 18
    Ledasmom says:

    I used to be opposed to penis-shaped graphs, but this one has changed my mind.

  19. 19
    Robert says:

    I really (don’t) want to see the penises that you folks are seeing, that make you think this graph is penis-shaped. :) (“I am pyramid-dick! Behold the wonder of my tapering shaft, and despair.”)

    Re: separation of government and morality, I agree with Nobody. Courts ought to be as neutral as possible for humans, lest their morality intrude on the legal rights of the people.

  20. 20
    chingona says:

    I also agree with nobody. Look at that.

    (Which is why I restated his restating of your statement. If we did a Venn diagram of this comment thread, there would be a big area of overlap where we’re all agreeing with each other. But there would still be the non-overlapping parts.)

  21. 21
    nobody.really says:

    I agree with Nobody.

    I also agree with nobody.

    Why does this blog attract so many cantankerous people…?

  22. 22
    Robert says:

    Nobody knows.

  23. 23
    Ledasmom says:

    Nobody cares!

  24. 24
    mythago says:

    I acknowledge that court rulings often do more than clarify legal rights; they also may establish a kind of legitimacy on the prevailing side. Some people celebrate this dynamic; I don’t.

    “This position is, from a legal point of view, the legitimate one” is a dynamic that bugs you? Seriously?

    The ringing pronouncements about ‘courts should just follow the law’ are not much more than a suggestion that they aren’t following the law.

  25. 25
    nobody.really says:

    “This position is, from a legal point of view, the legitimate one” is a dynamic that bugs you? Seriously?

    Consider free speech: Courts uphold the right of the Klan to march through Skokie, of pornographers to depict and glorify rape, and of Rev. Phelps to argue that dead soldiers are God’s punishment for homosexuality. Imagine that after each holding you come home to find your black, lesbian daughter reading the headline in the local paper saying, “Courts Once Again Vindicate Legitimate Position From Legal Point of View.” Happy with that?

  26. 26
    mythago says:

    You mean “Court Rules First Amendment Still Applies To Assholes”? Yes, I’d be ecstatic. So would they. Unless you think that my daughters are dumb enough to look at a headline, fail to note that there is a story underneath it and then collapse into tears.

    Sorry the cheap “what if YOUR DAUGHTER…” shot didn’t work, but really. Did you really believe anyone thinks that the Supreme Court established a ‘kind of legitimacy’ for Phelps?

  27. 27
    Ledasmom says:

    Incidentally, for those who have not had a look over at Family Scholars, the comments to this very post there have produced probably the silliest anti-marriage-equality argument I have ever seen (no, I know it’s the silliest one I’ve ever seen, and it may be the silliest one ever): that same-sex marriages are bigoted by analogy to segregated schools, because only one sex is represented in the marriage.

  28. 28
    Jake Squid says:

    Ledasmom,

    I’d love to be able to laugh at how the anti-SSM arguments are degenerating into nonsense. Unfortunately I’ve seen that argument at least as long ago as 2004.

  29. 29
    Mandolin says:

    Ooo, do all marriages need to be triads including [eta: binary masculine and feminine and also] third-gender or non-binary people? Otherwise SEGREGATION.

  30. 30
    Ledasmom says:

    Darn. I was hoping I’d found a new strain of ridiculous.

  31. 31
    Hershele Ostropoler says:

    mythago, 5:

    Robert @2: darn it, you had me all cheering for you and then you dropped in the ‘court action’ thing.

    The way to prevent court action is for states not to have unconstitutional laws.

    Right; what’s the downside?

    chingona, 8:

    I know you qualified this with a “mostly,” but I’m not sure history justifies even a “mostly.” Just to use the most obvious example at hand here, Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriage at a time when it never could have passed in most of the legislatures in the country

    I replied to this in the first draft of this comment by bringing up Lawrence v. Texas. Four comments later …

    chingona, 12:

    Or take Lawrence v. Texas. Most people don’t think that anal and oral sex between consenting adults should be illegal, but for some reason, it was very hard to get these laws off the books, and occasionally, some prosecutor would dust them off and go after someone. And while there hasn’t been no grousing from conservatives about that ruling, I don’t see some huge social movement forming around recriminalizing consensual sodomy

    In fact, around half a dozen states still have laws on the books outlawing homosexual acts, to be ready if Lawrence v. Texas is overturned or just to show they disapprove of Lawrence. The court action hasn’t produced a groundswell of support for staying out of people’s bedrooms. I think DADT repeal, a legislative action, will do more for that in the long run.

  32. 32
    mythago says:

    Ledasmom @27: I think I’ve seen that same argument at FSB before (probably by the same people). When you point out that they should also regard all same-race marriages as “bigoted” they stop commenting for a while, then pop up again to repeat themselves. They don’t really believe it, but they’re trying to come up with something other than “God made Adam and Eve”.

  33. 33
    Ledasmom says:

    I expect it was the same people – I’m over there in fits and starts, usually disappear for a while when the comment threads get closed. Right now there’s only about one in two that allow comments at all.
    It was just such an absurd argument that I couldn’t believe anybody would seriously propose it – especially the bit about the terribly, terribly bigoted homosexuals who simply refuse to marry someone of the opposite sex, even though that person is a wonderful person and a good lover and all that.
    I mean, how can anyone know what “homosexual” means and still make that argument?

  34. 34
    La Lubu says:

    When you point out that they should also regard all same-race marriages as “bigoted” they stop commenting for a while, then pop up again to repeat themselves.

    This time, they’re just sidestepping the question (are marriages between two people of the same ethnicity inherently bigoted?). The main opposing points to SSM are: it doesn’t provide “integration of the sexes” (a concept SSM opponents are so far declining to define; I’ve asked several times in that thread and in others), and it doesn’t provide for biological reproduction between the two partners (which SSM opponents readily agree should not be a requirement of heterosexual marriages). The last point is: the two above points together. No, I’m not kidding.

  35. 35
    marmelade says:

    Sadly, choosing anyone to marry is inherently bigoted.

    By marrying, we say to the world “I will give this person preferential and special access to my life that I deny others. No one who is not this person or who has different qualities from this person can qualify for this special offer. Because these other people do not have the same qualities as my fiancee (gender, race, number of children, love of golf, tendency to giggle at sad movies, etc.), I discriminate against them all.”

    Obviously, the whole bigoted institution has got to go.

  36. Pingback: What I’ve been reading – Indiana abortion laws, same sex marriage, Poppy Project « tenderhooligan

  37. Pingback: What I’ve been reading – Indiana abortion laws, same sex marriage, Poppy Project « tenderhooligan

  38. 36
    mythago says:

    La Lubu @34: What they really mean is that they see men and women as incomplete and inherently opposed creatures. They think they’re being really clever by trying to recast this as “it’s discrimination if you don’t,” and they’re not actually clever enough to see the problems with the analogy.

  39. 37
    La Lubu says:

    mythago, one of the opponents on that thread finally defined it as copulation. He didn’t put it that way, of course. I pointedly asked him if “integration of the sexes” meant “conception, pregnancy and birth.” He replied that conception, pregnancy and birth would be a sign that integration of the sexes took place.

    So, it’s just a strange euphemism for sex. Well, PIV sex anyway. Well, PIV sex between a heterosexual, cisgendered man and a heterosexual cisgendered woman. So far (on another thread) none of the SSM opponents are offering any opinions on marriages involving transsexual or intersexed persons.

  40. 38
    mythago says:

    So, what, after they have PIV sex there’s a bright blue flash and they’re now “integrated”?

  41. 39
    La Lubu says:

    So, what, after they have PIV sex there’s a bright blue flash and they’re now “integrated”?

    *snicker* Yeah, Tab P went into Slot V, so now equality of the sexes has been achieved. (no…seriously. that’s it—equality of the sexes occurs via vaginal intercourse with a penis. you couldn’t make stuff like this up.)

  42. 40
    Jake Squid says:

    It sure looks like the only folks left on the anti-marriage equality side are either religious or entirely delusional. Often both. It’s something to celebrate.

  43. 41
    nobody.really says:

    It sure looks like the only folks left on the anti-marriage equality side are either religious or entirely delusional.

    I don’t share this view, as I explain further over at The Alas Debate Annex.

  44. 42
    Chairm says:

    La Lubu and Ledasmom, you have not accurately represented the discussion at Family Scholars. Perhaps inadvertently.

  45. 43
    Grace Annam says:

    If you genuinely believe that courts should STFU and leave controversial issues to the legislatures, I recommend you read the dissent in Perez.

    Which is available here:

    http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Perez_v_Sharp_CA_1948.pdf

    Grace

  46. 44
    Chris says:

    Chairm, perhaps you feel misrepresented because you and your fellow bloggers from Opine Editorials express yourselves in a way that makes no sense to anyone outside of your blog.

  47. 45
    Ledasmom says:

    Exactly what part of On Lawn’s position on that particular point have I misrepresented? It’s not my fault it’s ludicrous; I take it as I see it.

  48. 46
    Greg Randles says:

    @nobody.really

    Nice twist on words. “Anti marriage,” or “marriage equality” amounts to one thing – the homosexual agenda. Queers are not interest in getting married. How many gays in Canada have taken advantage of same-sex marriage? A very small portion indeed. Same sex “marriage’ is not about “rights,” it is about legitimizing the lifestyle of a tiny minority group of people.

    Here’s a warning for Americans and Canadians. We recently had the mayoral elections in Toronto, Ontario. One of the front-runners was a homosexual by the name of George Smitherman. He had an expensive public relations corporation behind him, an extensive advertising campaign and huge posters all over the city. He made a number of carefully scripted TV appearances with his”husband,” lovingly kissing each other with their two-year-old son between them. All was going well for George until the ethnic communities decided to take action.

    The Tamil and Muslim communities ran radio commercials and put out leaflets, urging their communities not to vote for a man who represents another man as his husband. It was bold, in-your-face and entirely politically incorrect. Voting night resulted in members of the African, east Indian, Tamil, Muslim, and West Indian communities voting for Rob Smith, a white heterosexual, politically incorrect anti-gay politician. imagine if such an advertising campaign was put out by a white Baptist church? The queers would be screaming bloody murder. But they were strangely silent when thousands of ethnic voters turned out to trounce Smitherman.

    Here in Calgary, Alberta, we now have a Muslim mayor. The nearest front runner didn’t stand a chance. The Muzzies got their votes out and in huge numbers. Now, what does this tell you? As we continue to bury ourselves alive under the madness of multiculturalism and political correctness, the ethnics are getting organized. Our Third World immighration policy is beginning to create a monster that is beginning to stir, and will turn against use. Do you really think that gay rights and “equality will mean anything as non-white immigrants and their offspring become the majority in 30 years from now? Remember, they are coming here from countries that are hostile to gay rights. And we all know that they rarely, if ever, leave their prejudices behind when they arrive here.

  49. 47
    Jake Squid says:

    It was bold, in-your-face and entirely politically incorrect.

    It’s so refreshing to see somebody who’s unabashedly proud of their bigotry and hate.

  50. 48
    Robert says:

    I think Mr. Randle needs to decide whether he likes gays or immigrants less, as it will clarify his rhetoric.

  51. 49
    Greg Randles says:

    Hello Jake,

    You are correct, I am not politically correct nor will I ever be. If you want to live in a bubble of social engineering and political correctness then that is your choice. Simply because I do not agree with same-sex marriage or queers parading through our streets in disgusting displays of sad-masochism et al, does not make me a “hater.” or do you label everyone as such because they disagree with you?

  52. 50
    Ampersand says:

    If you want to live in a bubble of social engineering and political correctness then that is your choice.

    I wish it was my choice! It turns out that you can’t just choose to live in a bubble of social engineering. There’s an application process, committees, and so forth. It’s like trying to get into Harvard!

    I’m hoping to get into a good social engineering bubble this year. Fingers crossed!

    Will you write me a recommendation?

  53. 51
    Chris says:

    Simply because I do not agree with same-sex marriage or queers parading through our streets in disgusting displays of sad-masochism et al, does not make me a “hater.”

    How do you know it is sad-masochism? They look pretty happy to me.

  54. 52
    Robert says:

    Even with your cartoon millions, Amp, you’re not going to be able to swing the processing fees and ongoing subscription charges for the bubble. I tried to live in one last year and it was just financially brutal. I would have had to switch to domestic champagne! DOMESTIC!

  55. 53
    Greg Randles says:

    Hello Robert,

    I work with both gays and immigrants every day. In my travels world-wide (as in my workplace), I have met more good people than bad ones. My point is simply really, you cannot push “gays rights” with all the trappings, i.e., same-sex marriage and gay pride parades, etc, then fill up Canada with immigrants who are hostile to both.

    In many conversations I have had with immigrants from Africa, India, Muslims lands and Asian countries, they are strongly opposed to gay rights. In India and the West Indies gays are stoned and chased out of their communities, in Muslim lands they are hanged, and in some Asian countries (Macaw) they are imprisoned. Even Uganda is considering introducing laws that would have GBLTs executed!

    In the recent elections, large numbers of ethnic voters support the Conservatives, in the hope that same-sex marriage would be repealed and gay politicians like Scott Brison would not be re-elected. The Toronto mayoral election is a prime example of the sort of mindset that put Rob Ford into the big job. Now all you have to do is increase this sort of voting a thousand fold in all major urban centers and you’ll get an idea where ethnic voters are taking us.

    My point is, what sort of Canada do you really want? Do you want a truly tolerant Canada where people are accepted regardless of who or what they are? A Canada where basic human rights is guaranteed for all? A Canada where people can feel safe to be what they want to be without fear of persecution and discrimination? Well, you ain’t gonna get it if we keep filling up the country with the Third World.

    If we really must take immigrants, then why not take them from Europe, or the UK or even South Africa – people who will more readily integrate, respect this nation and its values, and be productive? Or would that be so terribly racist? I truly believe that we are sleep walking into a nightmare. Just think, in 30-40 years from now when white Canadians find themselves in the minority, what will happen to OUR rights? What will happen to our laws, our institutions, minority rights and the security of the person? Will the two gay cousins in my family suddenly find themselves in a jail or be subject to gay bashing as their community becomes largely ethnic? Just walk around Burnaby BC, or Jane & Finch in Toronto and see how safe you feel.

    Answers on a postcard please. Politically correct answers are not acceptable.

  56. 54
    Ampersand says:

    I spent hours just last week walking through all sorts of sections of Toronto, and was amazed at how diverse it was. In one area it was majority Korean; not much later, most Indian; another area was (judging by the signs) a formerly Greek area that is changing. It’s a fabulous city. One thing that actually occurred to me, as I walked, is how safe I felt in Toronto, even when I was walking around at 1am.

    Oh, by the way, I don’t think you’re adding to the kind of environment we want here on Alas. It might be fine to have one or two of your kind here, but I suspect you wouldn’t be willing to assimilate to our local culture, and I’m worried that some of the current residents wouldn’t feel safe with your type moving in. For that reason, you’re banned from posting on “Alas.” Thank you for your contributions, and please feel free to take a gift bag on your way out.

  57. 55
    mythago says:

    Robert and Amp, you silly boys. You can just sleep your way in, everybody knows that. It’s like you’ve never BEEN to San Francisco. /eyeroll.

  58. 56
    Robert says:

    That would work for Amp. But I am *so pretty* that my entry into the gay sexual marketplace would break the system and cause absolute chaos. I don’t want that on my conscience; thousands of suddenly celibate gay men unwilling to settle for second best, pining away in loneliness. No. It’s too much of a burden for one man.

  59. 57
    mythago says:

    People of San Francisco, I believe we have our next mayor!

    (Robert, we’ll get you Groucho glasses or something for public appearances. Don’t want you to get torn to pieces.)

  60. 58
    Robert says:

    All right. As long as I don’t have to talk to any, you know. Brown people.

    Because they hate my freedoms.

  61. 59
    Bear says:

    As an actual Torontonian, I’d like to point out that the election of Rob Ford was a the result of a battle between the downtown and the suburbs (who felt that the dt was getting a disproportionate amount of tax monies). While there was some gay-baiting (that can’t possibly be the right term, so feel free to correct me), it was rather minor to the actual reasons people voted for Ford.

    Also, bubbles in Canada are free, like health care. Anyone can get into the bubble here as long as you meet residency requirements, and you don’t mind long wait times.

  62. 60
    mythago says:

    Bear @58: But…the beer stores!

  63. 61
    Chairm says:

    Chris, sex integration is exemplified by the the sexual basis for cosummation, which happens to be the sexual basis for annulment, and the sexual basis for adultery, and the sexual basis for for the vigorously enforced legal presumption that the husband will be the father of children born to his wife.

    However, there is much more to it but, at this point, perhaps you might pause to consider if this brief explanation is beyond your level of comprehension or if, as I rather expect based on your part in comment sections at FSB, you comprehend but would prefer to willfully misrepresent.

    Sex integration is combined with provision for responsible procreation and the two are indivisiblely at the core of the social institution. That is the marriage idea, as Ampersand’s host at FSB, David Blankenhorn, has described in his own academic manner in the book, The Future of Marriage. Go back to Plato and Aristotle and you’d discover much the same but that might too ancient or too Greek and highly-reasoned for your tastes.

    The term, resonsible procreation appears in the official legislative background on DOMA and, where it has been accuratelyy represented in courtrooms and n legislative forums, it has proven both persuasive and decisive in upholding the man-womancriterion of marriage law.

    The term, sex integration, has been variously described but most recently Robert George wrote about the bodily union within the compreensive union of husband and wife. It stands in contradistinction with the sex segregative arrangement that is promoted as ‘same-sex marriage”. That arrangement segregates by sex, by sexual attraction, and by socio-political identity. It is this sex segregation that is heraldd as the big idea behind the bumper sticker slogan, marriage equality.

    That slogan is oft-used by advocates although it does not make much sense given that the SSM idea is to prop-up the false moral and legal equivalence proposed by advocates. That isto say,they do not favor equality in marriage law but rather they support the elevation of a nonmarital type of relationship over and above the rest of the specrum of relationships in the broad nonmarriage category; and, more, they support the primacyof gay identity politics over and above the core meanining of marriage, over the principles of our form of self-government (see the abuse of judicial review), and over justice itself.

    Again, that may be incomprehensible to you, but I doubt it is. And while I give you more credit than is merited by your rhetoric, and the rhetoric of the SSM campaign, I also undertand the corruptive influence of identity politics on public discourse and, eventually, the adverse influence of its distortions on the culture’s ability to even talk about the meaning of things for which the common and useful words have been misappropriated. The SSM argumentation of Ampersand, for one example, works insofar a it makes marriage mean less and less and less.

    It does not surprise, then, that buying into the SSM idea tends to impair clear thinking about marriage, governance, and justice. Much more sophisticated thinkers – philosophic, lawyerly, and political – than Ampersand have turned to jello as they rationalize their support for the SSM idea. Misrepresentations are to be expected during discussion of contentious subjects but when corrected why cling to them anyway? Prejudice. In the case of SSM advocates that prejudice is illustrated by the rhetorical emphasis on homosexuality and on gay identity which is contradicted by the SSM argumentation that takes same sex sexual attraction out of SSM at law.

    La Lubu misrepresented that FSB discussion but she might at least acknowledge the correction or the clarification even if she’ still disagree with it. I say, at least, because if we manage to agree on an accurate representation,then, we might fairly agree to disagree or continue to discuss the actua disagreement civilly.

    But willful misrepresentation derails discussion and produces neither acknowledgement of the actual disagreement nor substantive airing of differences. You may not like to hear this but for those of you who hope to convince, rather than to club and subdue by indoctrination, the SSM side really needs to improve its representation of the actual argument you think or feel is mistaken.

    The defense of marriage side has had to do that hard work and yet SSMers are still stuck in the stale thinking of ten or fifteen years ago. Misrepresentation leaves you shadow boxing with yourself.

  64. 62
    La Lubu says:

    Chairm, this is what I said above:

    This time, they’re just sidestepping the question (are marriages between two people of the same ethnicity inherently bigoted?). The main opposing points to SSM are: it doesn’t provide “integration of the sexes” (a concept SSM opponents are so far declining to define; I’ve asked several times in that thread and in others), and it doesn’t provide for biological reproduction between the two partners (which SSM opponents readily agree should not be a requirement of heterosexual marriages). The last point is: the two above points together.

    That is a crystal-clear representation of the argument, as so far neither you nor your compadres are willing to define exactly what “sex integration” is. Is it two people of the opposite sex spending a lot of time with each other? Being married to each other? Having sex with each other? Or does the sex count only if it is PIV sex? Who knows? You don’t say.

    You have also failed to define “bodily union”. You allude that it is sexual in nature, but you refuse to say how sex between heterosexuals results in “bodily union” while sex between persons of the same sex does not. You allude that it refers to conception, pregnancy and birth (which is why, according to you, SSM couples don’t qualify for “bodily union”), but you don’t explain how heterosexuals can have all kinds of rip-roaring sexual experiences with one another—-sans conception, pregnancy, birth…..or even marriage—but still achieve this mysterious “bodily union”. Or perhaps I am misinterpreting—that you believe heterosexuals can only achieve “bodily union” with a valid marriage certificate; that the sex itself is inconsequential.

    Speaking of the sex itself, if that is indeed an intrinsic part of “bodily union”—what comprises that union? I mean, physically? Is it the penis entering the vagina, or is it that plus the moment of orgasm? Or is all irrelevant unless conception, pregnancy and birth result? Is one birth all it takes—after that, all other sexual activity can be considered “bodily union”? Or does it not even require birth–just the breaking of the hymen? Is it “bodily union” if only the man acheives orgasm, or do both partners have to achieve orgasm in order for “bodily union” to result?

    I’m not kidding. I want a physical description of what “bodily union” is that excludes all sexual activity between same-sex partners, while still including all nonprocreative sexual activity between opposite-sex partners. Because from where I stand, you aren’t describing a physical state of being.

    I stand by my words. That’s my assessment of the argument: something called “integration of the sexes” (undefined) combined with the possibility of biological reproduction (except when it’s not—for heterosexual couples only). Your argument shifts boundaries when forced to grapple with heterosexuals who have no desire for or no ability to have children.